Kerala High Court
Sarun Ms vs The Child Welfare Committee on 19 June, 2025
WA NO.1053/2025 1
2025:KER:44140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO.1053 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.9479/2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SARUN M.S.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.SAROJAN M.K., MANGARA HOUSE, BEACH ROAD,
CHERAI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683514
BY ADV SRI.ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPUZHA P.O.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683517
3 LAKSHMI T.N.,
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O.NANDANAN T.G.,
THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPUZHA P.O.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683517
WA NO.1053/2025 2
2025:KER:44140
4 KIRAN SURESH @ KANNAN,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.SURESH,
MANIKATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE
KONGORPPILLY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683525
BY ADV.
SRI.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, R1
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R2
SRI.T.N.SREEKALA, R3 & R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1053/2025 3
2025:KER:44140
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
27.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9479 of 2025.
Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C) and respondents were
the respondents therein.
2. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs :
"i. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the 1 st
respondent to consider Exhibit P1 on merits and to take
immediate actions to secure the minor daughter of the petitioner
from physical and mental abuse within a reasonable time after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the 2 nd
respondent to consider Exhibit P2 on merits and to take
immediate actions on the same within a reasonable time after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
iii. To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit
and proper."
3. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ
Petition holding that Child Welfare Committee is not the proper
2025:KER:44140
Forum for redressal of the grievance of the appellant and that if he
has a case that the child's mother is not protecting its best interest,
he would be at liberty to approach the Family Court and work out his
remedies in accordance with law. The said judgment is impugned in
this appeal.
4. Heard Sri.Arun Luckose Abraham, Advocate, for the
appellant, Sri.M.U.Vijayalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the
1st respondent, Sri.K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government
Pleader for the 2nd respondent and Smt.T.N.Sreekala, Advocate, on
behalf of respondents 3 and 4.
5. We note that the appellant is the father of a three-year-
old girl child and he had an estranged relationship with his wife,
whom he later divorced. The appellant contends that the daughter
had disclosed to him that the 4th respondent, who is the cousin
brother of the 3rd respondent (wife), had physically and mentally
abused her. Appellant had hence moved the 1st respondent to no
avail and thereafter had filed the W.P.(C) contending that action on
the part of the 1st respondent is arbitrary and had filed the Writ
Petition seeking the above reliefs.
2025:KER:44140
6. We note that the learned Single Judge had relied on the
dictum laid down in the judgment of this Court in Shaiju S. and
others v. Child Welfare Committee, Kollam and others [2021 (6)
KHC 573], wherein it had been inter alia held that the 1st respondent
Welfare Committee's role would arise only when none of the parents
are in a position to take care or protect the child and that the Welfare
Committee can step in to protect a child only when parents are not
in a position to do the same. The role of the Welfare Committee as
clarified in the said judgment, commences from the stage where
both parents are not in a position to take care and protect the child.
7. We note that the learned Single Judge had specifically
taken note of the fact that the three-year-old girl child was in the
protection of her mother, who is the divorced wife of the appellant.
Insofar as the child is within the care and custody of her mother, it
was concluded that the appellant cannot seek the 1 st respondent,
the Welfare Committee, to intervene in the matter. The finding of the
learned Single Judge that the Child Welfare Committee is not the
proper forum for the redressal of the appellant's grievance and that
he would be at liberty to approach the Family Court and work out his
2025:KER:44140
remedies in accordance with law is valid and proper. We see no
reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:44140
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
29-03-2025 BEFORE THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
01-04-2025 BEFORE THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28-04-
2025 WITH NO. CWC/EKM/93/2025 FROM THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28-04-
2025 WITH NO. CWC/EKM/94/2025 FROM THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE SOCIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT FOR CHILD IN NEED OF CARE AND
PROTECTION DATED 25-03-2025 RECEIVED
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
